America must cut Umbilical Cord with Israel

I must begin this discussion by explaining something that concerns the television cable network Fox News.

Ordinarily the network operates as the Voice of Israel in America. When it is election time in the United States, the network becomes the Voice of Israel's Likud party, treating the American Republican and Democratic parties as its two overseas wings. Fox News reminds them that whatever they pretend to be doing for America, in reality, their mandate is to serve Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Anne Bayefsky knows all this, which is why she wrote a manifesto containing a set of commands, instructing America's UN Ambassador Nikki Haley what to do next, and had the manifesto published on the website of Fox News. It appeared on June 5, 2017 under the title: “Nikki Haley's challenge” and the subtitle: “UN meddling in our election and the UN 'human rights'”.

Bayefsky begins the manifesto by making sure Nikki Haley understands that her primary function is to use American power and prestige to serve Israel. The occasion is that Haley will be traveling to Geneva to participate in meetings of the UN Human Rights Council (this happened already), and her job will be to silence Israel's critics and challenge the membership of the nations that Israel considers to be today's enemies. This being serious business, Bayefsky's command to Haley is a terse one: “It's about time we changed the script”.

Too ignorant to realize that the United Nations has the duty to address world issues no matter where they begin or where they end, Anne Bayefsky expresses indignation at the fact that a Jordanian named Al Hussein happens to be the current High Commissioner for Human Rights, and that he expressed an opinion about the statements uttered by candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Donald Trump.

She called Al Hussein's opinion foreign meddling in US elections – and without saying so openly – put that opinion at par with recent accusations of Russian meddling in American elections. At the same time, however, she neglected to mention Israel's constant and open meddling in American elections … which includes blackmail bordering on the criminal.

In a burst of bitter irony that befits a Bayefsky, the woman picked up the task from where the Russians are alleged to have left off. In this regard, rumors had it that to help Donald Trump win the electoral race, the Russians killed the Clinton Democratic horse. So here comes Anne Bayefsky, and kicks the dead horse – not to express affection for the Russians – but to dump on former United States ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power … accusing her of having connections with the much hated Jordanian High Commissioner for Human Rights Al Hussein … If this is not subtle accusation of criminality, what is?

Here is how Anne Bayefsky set out to connect the dots of conspiracy the way she imagines them: “Zeid [Al Hussein] clearly expected a Clinton win and a big pay day for his UN office … Mysteries remain: what exactly was he promised and by whom?”

Moreover, always suspicious about the strength of America's devotion to work exclusively for the benefit of Israel, Anne Bayefsky sets out to plant “two key questions firmly in the minds of every listener.” First, she asks: “Will Haley put her money [that's taxpayers money] where her mouth is, or is this a photo-op?” Second, she asks: “Will the US continue to belong and hence, to legitimize, a human rights body with entrenched anti-Jewish and anti-Israel agenda?” After all, Haley was sent to the UN (whether in New York or Geneva) to serve the agenda of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Finally, parroting what the editors of the Wall Street Journal said recently about Donald Trump staking his reputation and mortgaging America's credibility by promising something to the Jews and not delivering it immediately, Bayefsky says this: “Haley has staked her reputation on being serious about the UN's diabolical treatment of the Jewish state … She outlined membership changes that must be made, and insisted that the practice of singling Israel for criticism must end. But 'must' is a weasel word, without a bona fide 'or else.' Her audience awaits”.

If anything, this tells America's politicians never, never, never again to promise the Jews something during an election campaign because the Jews will crucify them and crucify America if they don't get it pronto.

They celebrate the Failure to conjoin

If living a full life were to be metaphorically represented by a loaf of bread, what would you call a piece of crumb? Believe it or not, a high representative in the government of Israel calls it a great Jewish life worth celebrating.

That high Israeli official is the self-styled historian, Michael B. Oren who used to be Israel's ambassador to the United States, but is now Israel's deputy minister for diplomacy in the prime minister's office. He wrote: “Israel's 1967 Victory Is something to Celebrate,” an article that was published on June 5, 2017 in the New York Times.

If you ask: What exactly does he say is worth celebrating? You'll find his response to be that the 1967 War “brought us peace with Egypt and Jordan and a strategic alliance with the United States.” Further down the article, he specifies that: “Israel reconciled with Egypt in 1978 and, later, with Jordan in 1994”.

To view those events in their proper perspective, it must be noted that 1978 is 11 years away from 1967, and that 1994 is 27 years away from it. As to how far they are from 1948 when Israel was formally established, count them as 30 years and 46 years respectively. It doesn't take that long to reconcile between two who are not Jews.

When you add to those realities the fact that an Arab initiative has been on the table for more than a decade proposing full recognition of Israel by all the Arab countries (replacing the existing cold peace with two,) and that Israel has rejected the initiative, you see that the Jews will kick a full loaf of life to go for a piece of crumb, and when they get it, celebrate a great victory. What can be more petty or more small-minded than that!

As if this were not enough to describe a mentality that is mind boggling to the rest of us, Michael Oren takes the rest of the space to explain that the dispute between the indigenous Palestinians and the Jewish invaders (which he says made it impossible for the Jews to make the choices that normal humans do) goes back not just to 1948, but further back to 1917. Now you must add 31 more years to all those tallies.

But did the event of 1967 actually produce the reconciliation with Egypt, which in turn brought about the one with Jordan, like says Michael Oren? If an argument to that effect can be made – which Michael Oren is straining himself to make – it is not one that leads to the conclusion there is something here to celebrate. On the contrary, it is one that points to the Jewish religion as being the impediment to the Jewish ability at joining the human race in a social covenant for civilized coexistence.

In fact, that question is a complex one because on the one hand it can be argued that the answer is no, the event of 1967 did not directly lead to the reconciliation between Egypt and Israel. But on the other hand, it can also be argued that the answer might be yes because the attack of 1967 started the 6-year war that led to the defeat of Israel in 1973 … and a whole new paradigm was set in.

To understand this part, we must recall that the history of the Jews in Palestine from 1917 onward, has taught the Arabs that you do not negotiate with the Jews when theirs is a strong hand, and yours a weak one. They'll eat you alive and ask your loved ones to pay for the beverage they'll use to wash you down. This is why right after 1967, when Israel proposed to discuss peace with the Arabs; the latter said the famous 3 nos.

But four years after the Egyptian victory of 1973, President Anwar Sadat made the magnanimous gesture of going to Israel and telling the Jews – using different words – that they need to drop the behavior they read about in the Jewish Old Testament, and adopt the one they should start reading about in the Christian New Testament. In other words, stop trying to make crummy gains pursuing belligerent behavior, and start making substantial gains pursuing civilized interaction with the rest of humanity.

Alas, Sadat's words fell on deaf ears, and the proof is that Israel did not voluntarily withdraw from one inch of Arab land. However, like the Sinai, liberation came to Gaza, the Eastern Golan and South Lebanon because Israel was militarily defeated in those places. As to the Western Golan and the West Bank, Israel still holds a strong hand in those areas, and no amount of negotiation has produced the desired result.

Are there signs the situation will change for the better in the Middle East anytime soon? Not as long as the leaders of America will continue to flush their own country down the tube to make Israel appear as great as ever.

Road to Hell that's paved with Jewish Punditry

There is the saying: “The Road to hell is paved with good intentions.” But that's not the only road that leads to hell; there is another one. It is the road that's paved with corrosive Jewish punditry.

This blog – which contains nearly 2,300 articles discussing thousands of postings by members of the Jewish mob of pundits swarming the marketplace of ideas and elbowing everyone else – is a compendium attesting to the destructive influence of the Jews who fight not ideas with ideas, but fight ideas with often hard to prove criminal coercion, and cowardly whispers of defamation.

Two recent articles can now be added to the list. They show how Jewish pundits can go off-base by a mile when it comes to understanding what's happening in the world, and how to handle the situations that arise on a daily basis. One article came under the title: “The battles of Britain and Egypt” and the subtitle: “Jihadis aspire to 'cleanse' the Islamic world and force the West to submit,” written by Clifford D. May and published on May 30, 2017 in The Washington Times. The other article came under the title: “Trump needs to test Arab promises to fight terror,” written by Benny Avni, and published on May 31, 2017 in the New York Post.

Clifford May begins by defining the two Arabic expressions “Dar al Harb” and “Dar al Islam.” Yes, Dar al Harb can be translated as “House of War,” but that's not the place where the arrogant disbelievers, heretics and apostates violate Allah's laws, like says Clifford May. It is a place where Muslims are discriminated against as if war had been declared against them. As to “Dar al Islam,” May's translation of it as “House of Submission” is false. To understand this part, we need to understand the difference between two Arabic words.

There is the word “Salam” which means “Peace” in Arabic. It is the same as the word “Shalom” in Hebrew. The expression “Al Salam Aleykum,” which means “may peace be upon you” is heard millions of times everyday in the Arab countries by Christians, Muslims, Jews and every other religion. Nothing in these greetings connotes submission. It is simply wishing the other person a peaceful day.

And then there is the word “Istislam” which means “Submission” in Arabic. The word “Islam,” referring to the Muslim religion, is derived from Salam and not Istislam. Thus, Dar al Islam means not the “House of Submission” but the “House of Peace.” Yes, a true Muslim submits to the will of God but so does every devout person in any religion. This, however, does not mean there is submission everywhere you see the word Islam. That's because submission applies only to the will of God.

When you understand that part, you reject May's insinuation that what the “jihadis” are doing or aim to do, has roots in the Muslim religion. He says the jihadis will want to enforce their interpretation of Allah's laws in the House of Islam if they can establish it. Well, there are crazies in every religion who believe they have a mandate from God to do His work. But no one has come up with an authentic document certifying this claim. The jihadis, like other similar groups, can dream all they want but they'll get nowhere because humanity will not let them.

As to Benny Avni's article, all you need to do to assess the validity of what he says, is to look at the situation in the Iraq/Syria battlefield. After millions of words, uttered or written by thousands of Jewish pundits in hundreds of publications for several decades, no one can make out who's who or what's what in that place. All of the verbiage amounted to nothing because it started out as useless.

Moreover, it must be said that every paragraph written during the time that the Jews were monopolizing the marketplace of ideas, was glowing with the certainty that what was said was twice as truthful as any gospel delivered from the pulpits. Well, right now, Benny Avni is again speaking with that same certainty, and here is a montage of that:

“[Saudi Arabia] where wealthy princes have financed extremists and some still do. The jihadists threaten their hold on power. The old guard traditionalists still want to play ball with the Islamists. President el-Sisi will remain an ally. All Sunni-run nations are staunch foes of Iran. Qatar maintains business ties with Israelis … Chummy relations with Iran was a top reason leaders drifted away from America, and why they'll return with a Trump presidency”.

To end his dissertation, Avni says this: The Saudis and their allies are right to be mad at Qatar. Marshaling Arab support has been difficult. Opposition to Iran can unify the region. Trump needs to command Qatar and anyone trying to have it both ways: Choose.

If not the world, at least the Levant has gone to hell already, and the world has not the will to repeat the experience. Thus, the Jews can get in step with the world or they can continue to agitate for more of the same.

After four thousand years of experience they ought to know what comes at the end of this journey. Thus, they have a choice to make: there is the civilized way; and there is the Jewish way.

To save them from themselves, President Donald Trump should give them a simple command: Choose wisely or suffer the consequences when no one will be in a position to help you.

The Minnow ate the Whale but not the Carp

If you want to know how and why a minnow can swallow a big whale but not a small carp, you'll have to read three articles written in a little more than 3,000 words total.

June 2, 2017 is the day the three articles appeared; two of them in the New York Times and one in the Wall Street Journal. But guess what; one of the Times articles was written by Bret Stephens who used to be with the Journal but defected to the opposition for reasons other than his Jewish fanaticism. This should not surprise anyone given that in America's democracy, all things are subjected to the checks and balances of the system except when it comes to Judeo-Israeli matters where you must be a fanatic Jew or act like one everywhere you go, or you'll be pushed out of the game.

In fact, Bret Stephens shows what Jewish fanaticism looks like. Under the title: “Six Days and 50 Years of War,” he wrote the following condensed passages, highlighting his view of Israel as being a model of absolute perfection; whereas the rest of the world, without a single exception, being a model of absolute depravity:

“On June 4, 1967, Israel faced the fact that France, hitherto Israel's ally, had imposed an arms embargo on it. Lyndon Johnson failed to deliver on previous assurances. In 1973 Egypt and Syria unleashed a devastating attack on Israel. Israel offered Arafat a state; he rejected it. Olmert offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank; the Palestinians rejected the proposal. Egypt and its allies provoked a war. The 'international community' abandoned Israel. Jordan ignored Israel's warnings. The Arab League rejected the possibility of peace. Arafat adopted terrorism; rejected the offer of a state; renounced his renunciation of terror. Mahmoud Abbas rejected peace again. Gazans turned their territory into a terrifying model. The United Nations treated Hamas's attacks on Israel as a nuisance but Israel's self-defense as a crime against humanity”.

This brings us to Nathan Thrall who wrote his article under the title: “The Past 50 Years of Israeli Occupation. And the Next,” published in the New York Times. He begins the article by telling a true story that captures the Jewish sense of avarice. He then gives a reason why this particular act has – to the surprise of everyone – lasted as long as it did with no end in sight. Here is how that goes:

“In 1967 Golda Meir asked Levi Eshkol what he planned to do with the Arabs now living under Israeli rule.’I get it,' Eshkol replied, 'you want the dowry but not the bride.' Meir responded, 'my soul yearns for the dowry, and let someone else take the bride.' It is clear that over the half-century that followed, Israel managed to keep control of the land indefinitely without wedding itself to the inhabitants. This arrangement stood on pillars, among them American backing. From State to editorials, Americans are told Israel will have to choose to give Palestinians citizenship or independence. Yet, no one calls on the US to force this choice. Thus, Israel chooses continued occupation. The fallout is major increases in American financing of it, with Israel receiving more military aid than the rest of the world combined”.

So here you have Bret Stephens lamenting that Israel could not persuade the Palestinians to accept any offer to settle their differences; and you have Nathan Thrall lamenting that Israel and its American cohorts have persuaded the US government to not only accept the status quo, but finance it at an ever accelerating rate. It is the story of Israel the minnow that could not munch on the Palestinian carp yet swallowed the American whale.

To understand how something like this can happen, we turn to the editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “The Trump Jerusalem Waiver,” and the subtitle: “The President made the embassy move a test of the U.S. credibility”.

The editors begin by telling what the story is about: “Congress passed a law requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Trump issued a waiver to put the move off”.

Let it be known that every time the Congress passes a law requiring the Executive to do something for Israel, the scene looks like that of a wife telling her husband to shine the shoes of her lover or she'll have sex with him in a public venue. That's how these laws have diminished Uncle Sam who has reached the point of looking like a male bimbo trying to turn up a trick in the red light district of the Beltway but can't even find a dog to shag him.

The editors of the Journal continue: “Moving the embassy is not a US priority. But because Mr. Trump made a point of it in the campaign, the waiver damages American credibility [like] Obama's red line in Syria”.

Did you see that? Did you see the torrent of filth that the Jews have loaded into a bag, and attached it to Uncle Sam's neck? They now say that moving the embassy was never a priority to begin with even if America was made to mortgage its superpower credibility to satisfy a Jewish whim, and also to show the world who wears the proverbial pants in America.

Guess what the low life editors of the Wall Street Journal did after that. They set up a session for Uncle Sam in the horror chamber of the Jewish dominatrix so that she may show the world how much more she can humiliate the male bimbo that could never say no to her caprices. Read what follows and throw up as you weep:

“The White House claims the waiver was given in hopes of boosting chances for a peace accord. Here lies the bigger problem of the White House concluding it should spend political capital on the peace that has eluded Presidents for decades”.

This echoes what Israel and the mob of Jewish pundits have been spewing since the Oslo Agreement because, as Nathan Thrall has shown, Israel wants the dowry (land) but not the bride (population.) And so the leaders of Israel came up with a scheme they call “the situation,” according to which they started making life so unbearable for the Palestinians, the Jews expect them to start leaving everything behind for the Jews to steal, and go look for a new life somewhere else.

But of course, the editors of the Journal do not admit this is a Judeo-Israeli crime against humanity. What they say instead is this: “The peace will have a chance when the parties are prepared to negotiate, and the Palestinians are not.” Yes, this is their habit of yelling: no peace, no peace, no peace from one side of the mouth; and yelling: blame them, blame them, blame them from the other side of the mouth.

But that's good enough to get the Congress of brain dead zombies to look for Jewish shoes they can shine by licking them while pondering what else they can do to augment Israel by diminishing America.

And finally, the editors have the gall to say this: “No one forced Mr. Trump to make his pledge. The Palestinians will pocket this concession and hold out for more”.

This is like a pedophile saying to the aggrieved parents: you should feel lucky I'm making a huge concession. I came to rape your six children but spared one to please you. Don't except such restraint next time.

Jewish Thought: we're hated therefore we are

The French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes did not have to pinch himself to make sure he was awake and alive. He knew he was because, as he put it: “I think, therefore I am.” In effect then, Descartes was secure enough to check on his existence inside himself, and discovered the reality of his existence.

By contrast, the Jews – especially America's Jews – are never certain they exist. But if somehow, their existence is established, they still feel they could be annihilated at any time, thus never bother to check on the self inside themselves. Instead, they look to see the expression of the self in others; in people they envisage to be the mirror that may reflect who they are. Individual Jews think and behave in this manner as they interact with others in their daily lives. As a group, they also react in that manner, whether the group is the size of a small congregation or the size of a country.

But in Israel, they are not all the same. For example, the non-English speaking Jews who live there do not share that attitude with those who come from America and read such publications as the Jerusalem Post or any of the American publications. As to the Jews of Eurasian or Arab descent, they are more preoccupied with making it through the day, and be ready to face tomorrow and the days that follow. They feel good in their skin, and have no time to waste pondering the question of their existence.

This makes the American Jews and those who speak English elsewhere in the world a separate breed; one that lives in a permanent state of longing for someone to come and make them whole, but never arrives. Until that happens, these Jews do not feel whole, nor can they be certain they exist. Still, they seek to claim a place for themselves under the sun by looking for their reflection in others. Whether they see something or imagine it, they feel reassured when they can say: we're hated, therefore we are.

You can see this mentality express itself in the article that came under the title: “Refighting the Six-Day War” and the subtitle: “Fifty years later, Arabs nurture a fantasy of avenging their loss,” written by Herbert London, and published on May 31, 2017 in The Washington Times.

It must be said that Herbert London is slightly different from the American norm – such as Tom Friedman, for example – who knows something about the Middle East but used to deliberately promote the fake reality that the Arab leaders spend time and effort telling their people about a shiny object called Israel. He used to create this sort of noises to hide the fact that the Arab leaders have always ignored the existence of Israel, treating it as a happening that's devoid of any consequence.

London, on the other hand, seems to know very little about the region, but got the idea to write something about the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Israeli attack, thus read a few pages on the subject and sat down to compose his article. Lacking the background to write something that makes sense, he inadvertently revealed much about the Jewish American insecurity, and how the Jews of the Continent handle it.

Here is the revealing passage:

“The ghosts of 1967 live in the minds of American diplomats who still view the Israeli victory with the jaundiced eye of the Arabist angry at Jewish success. It is often said that history is written by the victors in war. From June 1967 to the present, we have witnessed a relentless underdressing of events. In this case, the Palestinians have dominated the narrative. The bearers of anti-Zionism present their bigotry as social justice”.

In other words, despite the great Jewish victory of 1967, the Palestinians who lost it and lost everything with it, have managed to “dominate the narrative” for the last 50 years, says Herbert London. Why is that? Because there are American diplomats of the “Arabist” kind who are angry at Jewish success, thus bear the anti-Zionist label, and engage in presenting their bigotry as social justice, he goes on to say.

And there is only one thing that can be said about these people. It is that they hate Jews. But that's okay with the latter because until the one that will make them whole arrives, they will want to continue seeing the reflection of themselves in the eyes others. This tells them they are hated, therefore they are.

And that's reassuring to them.

They play America like a disposable Toy

When a magician plays his game, he seems to do one thing, but with a sleight of hand, makes us believe he did something else. We are entertained because the trick challenges our sense of reality without causing any harm or side-effect.

A magic of sort is also played with the truth concerning the daily events that unfold on the national and international stages. In other cases even history is tampered with each time that someone sets out to “rewrite” it. Called “spinning the truth,” these games are not meant to entertain. Rather, they are meant to exploit the audience and gain its approval when this is needed to “normalize” what's abnormal. In this case, great harm can be done, and the side-effects can last a long time.

Some of the spin doctors in the business of spinning the truth are highly trained professionals that get away with making past and current events look very different from what they really are. Other spinners are not as good at playing the game, thus produce works of low quality which impresses only the most gullible of audiences.

The Jewish propaganda machine, which relies more on the quantity of its participants than their quality, has become the most active group in America, dedicated to the business of spinning the truth and mutilating history. It does so to the point of turning reality upside down. Not only can the Jews make the audience believe that what's good is bad, and what's bad is good, they can make an audience believe that something is morally acceptable when done by them, yet immoral when done by someone else.

Very few Jews have the savvy to achieve their goals playing the game on a level playing filed. This is why the first thing they do is impose a system of censorship that lets them say what they want while shutting out everyone that opposes them. This done, they play the game alone pretending to represent both sides of the argument. Believe it or not, this is the fake democracy that's reigning in America at this time. In reality, the country is the most self-censored society in the world when it comes to the presentation of daily events happening abroad, especially those that concern Israel.

We can see how the Jews play the game when parsing two articles that were published in National Review Online. The first came under the title: “Donald Trump Shouldn't Let Saudi Arabia Play Him,” written by Matt Purple and published on May 30, 2017. The second came under the title: “Is Trump All Talk on Iran?” written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on May 31, 2017.

But why do we need to reveal the truth about the Jews spinning the truth and telling lies? We need to because of the way the Jews promote their agenda, getting crucial help from those immoral practices. For example, the Jews have mobilized America to do whatever is necessary to promote economic, diplomatic and military cooperation between the Arabs and Israel. People the world over view such effort as America pimping for Israel.

At the same time, however, when cooperation between America and the Arab countries is hinted at (not even acted upon,) the mob of Jewish pundits leaps into action and fires barrages of objections at the idea. It treats the news as if an existential threat had just materialized and that it hangs over Israel and the Jews everywhere. This is one of the ways that the mob plays America.

In fact, this is the subject that's treated in Matt Purple's article. He used the quintessential Jewish method of accusing the Saudis of doing to America what the Jews have been doing for several decades. His entire article is a contrived argument that says the Saudis are playing Donald Trump when the purpose of the article is for Matt Purple to play Donald Trump. And this is how the Jews turn reality on its head.

As to why the Jews wish to secure sole ownership of America, you'll find the answer in the Jonathan Tobin article. Because the Judeo-Israeli syndicate has ambitions that exceed its ability to realize them, it needs the power and prestige of superpower America to do the job.

For example, seeing Israel's inability to challenge a potential rival named Iran, the mob of Jewish pundits in America has mounted a campaign to persuade Washington to go after Iran. And this is how Jonathan Tobin is playing America and using it to serve the Judeo-Israeli agenda.

Jewish Noise-making Machine roaring again

Absent a clear direction from the political boiler room of the Likud Party's headquarter in occupied Palestine; Steven A. Cook has followed the example that was set by the mob of Jewish pundits in doing his analysis of President Trump's reconciliation with the Muslim World, especially Saudi Arabia.

He first meanders all over the intellectual landscape, groping for a theme he can catch and transform into a mantra that other Jews can use to impress the Congress of the United States, and annoy everyone else. You get a sense of all that when you go over the article he wrote under the title: “What Did We Learn From Trump's Encounter With the Saudi Monarchy?” and the subtitle: “While Trump's visit to the famously repressive Saudi Kingdom was quite a show, U.S. policy looks awfully familiar.” It was published on the website of Salon Magazine, and reprinted on May 27, 2017 on the website of the Washington Institute.

Steven Cook signals his hesitation with the first sentence he writes, which happens to be a question: “What is there to say that has not already been said?” He goes from there to ask three more questions, thus composes an opening paragraph that's nothing more than a pile of anti-Saudi defamation. By now the reader will have gotten the sense that Cook's not-so-subtle message consists of declaring his unhappiness at the reconciliation that President Trump just forged with Saudi Arabia.

Addressing an audience at large he hopes is substantial (as would any writer) Cook nevertheless begins to develop a preoccupation for the two destinations that make up the honored guests on the list of the Jewish pundits. They are Washington's White House and the Congress of the United States. And this consideration is what guides him now on how to proceed with writing the rest of the article.

Because he wants to tell Washington that cozying up to Saudi Arabia is a bad idea, he decides that the best way to do it is to say that Donald Trump has changed nothing from what Barack Obama was doing, except for the change in tone. The going wisdom being that every administration which takes over from the opposing party reverses the previous course, Cook thought he stumbled on a winning approach to writing his article.

And so, he goes on to tell how Trump has preserved everything that Obama left behind. He discusses “the new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology,” saying it “is merely picking up where Obama left off.” He also discusses “Trump's plan for the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center,” saying that “Obama pursued terrorist financing with vigor.” As to the arms package with Saudi Arabia worth $110 billion of beautiful weapons, Cook says that “part of the deal was done under Obama.” Finally, Cook takes up the subject of the Iran nuclear deal. He says that “the White House issued waivers regarding Iranian sanctions, in keeping with the nuclear deal”.

At this point, Steven Cook must have scratched his head furiously trying to think up more ways with which to impress upon the White House and the Congress that getting too close to the Arabs is a bad idea. He found a way. In fact, the find must have elated him because it gave him the opportunity to call the Arab leaders “bastards,” something he would have longed for since the moment he wrote his first article.

Here is how he proceeded: “In 1979, Commentary magazine published Jeane Kirkpatrick's essay “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” in which she argued that what matters is whether or not a foreign leader was on America's side. Cook takes it from there and argues that Donald Trump has embraced this point of view when he told the Arab leaders assembled in Riyadh: “We are not here to lecture or tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship”.

And so, Steven Cook comments as follows: “In other words, many [that] had gathered to hear the president may have been dictatorial bastards, but at least they shared his interest in bombing the Islamic State”.

The problem with all this, says Cook, is that even if the narrative sounds good to some people, “when it comes to defeating extremism and transnational terrorists, Trump is making a mistake by giving the leaders of some of the most repressive governments license to crack down on their people even more”.

And this is where Steven Cook reveals the bankruptcy of his theory which happens to be the concoction that came out the political boiler room of the Likud Party's headquarter long ago, and was disseminated by the mob of Jewish pundits in America and throughout the English speaking world.

As to the civilized world that's almost completely free of Jewish influence, its thinking people are busy figuring out why terrorism that's often attributed to Muslim kids, is prevalent in Belgium, Britain, China, France, Russia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey and the United States.

Because they are not hampered by the incessant noise-making machine of the pestering Jews, the thinking people of the civilized world stand a good chance at finding the answer.

When this happens, the Americans will once again be left behind. And they will continue to struggle to offset another kind of deficit plaguing the operation of their ship of state.

That's the moral deficit which is generated by their embrace of the intellectual dishonesty that's at the roots of Jewish thought.